By Showbiz Reporter-Popular gospel musician Sabastian Magacha is at the centre of a child maintenance dispute, in which he claims he can only afford to contribute US$100 monthly for the upkeep of his six-year-old daughter.
Magacha, who appeared before the courts recently, disclosed in an opposing affidavit that his monthly income averages around US$500 from his work as a gospel artist. He said this was his only source of income and that he is not formally employed.
“I furnish the State that my monthly income is plus or minus US$500,” reads part of his affidavit. “I have a wife, and we are blessed with two minor children. I pay US$250 in rent, and I spend US$70 on food and groceries. Based on my income and responsibilities, I can afford to contribute US$100 per month towards the minor child’s welfare.”
The musician also submitted a statement from the Zimbabwe Music Rights Association (ZIMURA), showing that he received a once-off payment of US$120 in royalties for 2024.
Magacha denied claims that he has neglected his parental duties and argued that he had been supporting the child until last year. He said his former partner had repeatedly rejected his financial contributions.
The relationship between the two ended when the child’s mother was two months pregnant, according to Magacha. He claimed the dispute has more to do with lifestyle expectations than neglect.
“She has always wanted to live a flamboyant lifestyle, which I made clear from the start I could not afford,” Magacha argued. “I tried to secure a place for the child at a school where the fees were US$90 per term, but the applicant refused and instead enrolled her in a private school costing US$800 per term.”
He further accused the child’s mother of refusing to accept his contributions since April 2024 and of failing to disclose her own income, which he believes is key to ensuring a fair outcome in court.
“The maintenance of a child is a shared responsibility, and both parents must contribute based on their means,” he said. “Unlike myself, the applicant has no other children to support and is gainfully employed, yet she did not disclose her income.”
The matter is still before the courts.